Abstract
Semiotics has perhaps missed the complexity train. It missed it when it was an «imperialist discipline» (Cf. Eco 1975: 17), at the heart of the cultural project of many other disciplines who adopted its models and very particular point of view.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Cf. Fabbri (2005).
- 2.
There are various reasons for that, not least the total indifference in the theory of systems, epistemology of models and those scientific reflections that, on the contrary, guided Eco in writing books such as The Open Work and A Theory of Semiotics (but also, later, Kant and the Platypus).
- 3.
- 4.
Cf. Greimas and Courtés (1979).
- 5.
- 6.
This is also the definition itself that Peirce gives for iconism, i.e. the categorical principle that in his opinion is at the basis of every cognition.
- 7.
- 8.
Cf. Morin (1986).
- 9.
The original french simply speaks of “language”.
- 10.
Cf. Licata (2008).
- 11.
Cf. Zinna (2001).
- 12.
However, in Hjelmslev, things are much more complex if we consider not only works such as Prolegomena to a theory of language or Linguistic Essays, but the true masterpieces of structural linguistics such as The Category of Cases, “Structure générale des correlations linguistiques” (General structure of linguistic correlations) or Resumé of a theory of language. In these works there is a place within structural linguistics for everything Saussure believed pertained to the first dimension of value, i.e. all nonhomogeneous dependencies (or “non-uniform”, as it is often translated). The key concept in this sense is fragmentation, which for Hjelmslev flanks that of analysis. Indeed, analysis is the «description of an object by the uniform dependencies of other objects on it and on each other» (R, Def. 3). Instead, fragmentation is the description opposite to analysis, i.e. the «description of an object by the non-uniform dependence of other objects on it and on each other» (R, Def. 4). According to Hjelmslev, this is exactly what occurs in the participative relations between tensive terms or inside the «analysis by dimensions». «The common term for analysis and fragmentation is dissection» (R, Def. 4), i.e. «cutting», «severing!, as in anatomy, where parts and organs of the body are dissected, sectioned and separated in order to study or describe them. I have worked extensively on these issues, with special attention on the relation between participative oppositions, analyses, nonhomogeneous dependencies and the first dimension of value in Saussure in Paolucci (2010), Chap. 1.
- 13.
Already in Raison et poétique du sens, and precisely in reference to the two meanings of Saussurean value, Claude Zilberberg (1983: 17) very correctly noted that the whole of generative semiotics «is constituted towards the adoption of the second principle and the non-theorised abandonment of the first» [TN: my translation].
- 14.
- 15.
Cf. La Mantia (2012).
- 16.
This is Morin’s definition of complexity (1986: 36–40).
- 17.
References
Carta, G. (2012). Rizoma e sistemi complessi, Tesi di laurea in Semiotica interpretativa, Università di Bologna.
Coquet, J. C. (2007). Physis et Logos. Une phénoménologie du langage. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1980). Mille plateaux. Capitalisme et schizophrénie. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
De Saussure, F. (1967). CLG Cours de linguistique générale. Lausanne-Paris: Payot.
De Saussure, F. (2003). ELG Écrits de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.
Eco, U. (1968). La struttura assente. Milano: Bompiani.
Eco, U. (1975). Trattato di semiotica generale. Milano: Bompiani.
Eco, U. (1978). Il pensiero semiotico di Jakobson. In: R, Jakobson (Ed.), Lo sviluppo della semiotica (pp. 5–32). Milano: Bompiani.
Eco, U. (1984). Semiotica e filosofia del linguaggio. Torino: Einaudi.
Eco, U. (2007). Dall’albero al labirinto. Milano: Bompiani.
Fabbri, P. (2005). La svolta semiotica. Roma: Laterza.
Ferraris, M. (2012). Manifesto del nuovo realismo. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
Ferraris, M., & e De Caro, M. (2012). Bentornata realtà. Torino: Einaudi.
Fontanille, J., & Zilberberg, C. (1998). Tension et signification. Liège: Mardaga.
Gandolfi, A. (2008). Formicai, imperi, cervelli. Introduzione alla scienza della complessità. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.
Greimas, A. J. (1970). Du sens. Paris: Seuil.
Greimas, A. J. (1983). Du sens II. Essais sémiotiques. Paris: Seuil.
Greimas A. J., & e Courtés J. (1979). Sémiotique. Dictionnaire raisonné de la théorie du langage. Paris: Hachette.
Hjelmslev, L. (1959). EL Essais linguistiques, Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague, vol. XII.
Hjelmslev, L. (1975). R Résumé of a Theory of Language, Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague, XVI, edited and translated with an introduction by J. Francis. Whitfield: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Hjelmslev, L. (1985). NE Nouveaux essais. Paris: PUF.
La Mantia, F. (2012). Che senso ha? Polisemia e attività di linguaggio. Roma: Mimesis.
Lotman, J. (1985). La semiosfera. Venezia: Marsilio.
Licata, I. (2008). La logica aperta della mente. Torino: Codice.
Licata, I. (2012). Epistemologia adattativa: vedere con i modelli. Reti, Saperi, Linguaggi, IV, 1, 9–16.
Morin, E. (1977). La Méthode 3. La nature de la nature. Paris: Seuil.
Morin, E. (1986). La Méthode 3. La connaissance de la connaissance. Paris: Seuil.
Morin, E. (1993). Introduzione al pensiero complesso. Milano: Sperling and Kupfer.
Paolucci, C. (2010). Strutturalismo e interpretazione. Milano: Bompiani.
Paolucci, C. (2012). Physis e nomos. Ideologie della natura tra catarsi, empatia e percezione sessuale. In G. Marrone (Ed.), Semiotica della natura (pp. 79–102). Milano: Mimesis.
Peirce, C. S. (1958). CP Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. voll. I–VI edited by C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (1931–1935), voll. VII–VIII edited by A. W. Burks (1958). Cambridge, (Mass): Belknap Press.
Peirce, C. S. (2009). W Writings of Charles Sanders Peirce. A Chronological edition. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Petitot, J. (1979). Locale/globale. Torino: Enciclopedia Einaudi.
Petitot, J. (1985). Morphogenèse du sens (Vol. 1). Paris: PUF.
Rastier, F. (2004). Deniers et veau d’or: des fétiches à l’idole, http://www.revue-texto.net/Inedits/Inedits.html.
Serres, M. (1968). Hermès I. La communication. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
Serres, M. (1972). Hermès II. L’interférence. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
Zilberberg, C. (1983). Raison et poétique du sens. Paris: PUF.
Zinna, A. (2001). “Il concetto di forma in Hjelmslev”, in Janus (2). Padova: Imprimitur.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Paolucci, C. (2017). System and Structure. Semiotics as Encyclopaedic Theory of Complexity. In: La Mantia, F., Licata, I., Perconti, P. (eds) Language in Complexity. Lecture Notes in Morphogenesis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29483-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29483-4_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-29481-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-29483-4
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)